run_script

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral requirements: ES3 syntax constraints, mandatory ending with __result/__error, and a list of available helpers. However, it does not mention timeout behavior, error handling, or the potential for destructive side effects from raw ExtendScript execution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense with no filler. Every sentence delivers functional detail: escape-hatch purpose, ES3 constraints, return contract, and helper list. It is front-loaded with the key purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a raw scripting tool without an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains how to write code, what syntax to use, how to return results, and lists all available helper functions. Missing details are timeout semantics and the exact structure of the __result object, but the description provides enough to use the tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema describes 'code' and gives timeout_ms a default but no description. The tool description adds meaning for 'code' by explaining ES3 syntax, the required return pattern, and helpers. It does not clarify the timeout_ms parameter behavior or interaction with the timeout parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it 'run[s] raw ExtendScript in Premiere' and positions itself as an 'escape hatch' for anything not covered by typed tools. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform specific operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says use it 'for anything the typed tools do not cover,' implying it is a last resort. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the escape-hatch framing provides clear context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.